Wildlife in the wild

[Scottm]

I took this image with a 70-300, set at 77mm. I could not get the full animal in the viewfinder and had no option but to go for the head-shot. There was no time to change lenses for fear of losing this rare opportunity with this animal in the wild. Any comments or critiques on what I could have done differently?



D7000 70-300 VR, f/5, 1/500, ISO 100, Auto-white balance

[jeeperman]

I think you did quite nicely. Nice and sharp. Exposure is good. I am guessing you were in a vehicle? Which adds to the difficulty as it would be hard to get down lower. Well done, and you didn't have to stay for dinner!

[Bobobird]

Paul you mean "did'nt have to be dinner"

Excellent shot Scott.

[WJT]

Wow Scott, that means you took this at 70mm which is close enough to smell its breath. Nice work, the eyes are sharp and the rest takes care of itself.

[Scottm]

Thanks for the comments.

Here is my take on one of the benefits of a high-resolution sensor... the ability to zoom in via cropping, rather than spending money I don't have on longer lenses I would dearly love to own..... see the crop below for detail, taken with a 70-300VR on D7000 (@170mm)

and the crop of the ear .... note the fly

[botspur]

Hi Scott, under the circumstances you did very well with the Leopard. Not many people get to photograph a Leopard in the wild, except for the pro's who spend months with the subject.

[FrankMi]

Here is my take on one of the benefits of a high-resolution sensor... the ability to zoom in via cropping, rather than spending money I don't have on longer lenses I would dearly love to own..... see the crop below for detail, taken with a 70-300VR on D7000 (@170mm)

This is an interesting concept. Not only could it save money on long lenses but it could help reduce bulk and weight in the field.

I would love to see the pros and cons comparing sensor size, density, and significant cropping to the related lens focal length need to achieve comparable results. Where does it make sense to upgrade a camera body verses a more expensive longer lens?

I suspect that there are other significant trade-offs I haven’t yet considered.

Thank you for bringing this possibility to my attention Scott.

[Scottm]

Once again, thanks for the positive comments.

Clive, you are in Botswana and should have reasonable access to photograph leopards and other wildlife that most only dream about. If only the rest of the world knew about the wildlife opportunities in "our" part of the world. I regularly travel to the South Eastern corner of your country to experience the wonderful photographic opportunities on offer there.

Frank, I have always been one that advocates buying the best, or waiting until one can afford the best, rather than settling for second best. Unfortunately, in my case, it may be a few hundred years until I could afford to get "pro" glass across the range, and finally decided that, rather than wait that long, to acquire an interim lens, replacing some of my older glass. I really needed VR and none of my lenses had this feature. The benefit now is that I get 9/10 keepers as opposed to 1/10, and my photography has improved hugely since this acquisition.

On the point I was attempting to make regarding the benefit of cropping, the D7000 has a cropped-sensor and so the "reach" of the 70-300 gets me to approximately 450mm relative to a full-frame camera. To get a similar view on a full-frame camera as I do on the D7000, I would need a 400mm+ lens, or a 300mm and a 1.4x converter and the 300mm lens would need to be f/4 or faster to take the converter. Both of these are pricey options. I understand that cropping is not a great way to plan any image, but when you cannot get closer to the wildlife (for whatever logistical reason), you have to "bring it to you" through lens reach, but preferably not degrading the quality of the final image in any way; a very difficult balance to maintain when on a severely limited budget.

Given my comments above, if I had the choice (and justification, which I don't have) to move to a full-frame camera, I would seriously consider the D800 over the D4, purely on the additional opportunity of "reach" I could get through cropping a 36MP image than I could off a 16MP image. However, without the additional capital outlay for pro-glass, neither of these cameras would be able to live up to their potential. Currently, the D7000 gives me the best chance for a successful wildlife image, given the conditions under which I normally find myself.